Educators Debate Efforts to Rename Schools that are named after Confederate Leaders


PDA






Jeff White
December 26, 2003, 11:21 PM
We did fight a very bloody war from 1861 through 1865 right? I seem to remember something about that from school. What is up with this effort to remove all references to it from popular culture? Will they demand that the Army rename Forts Jackson, Bragg, Hood etc. ? Perhaps they will go after references to Texas independence next. After all slavery was illegal in Mexico at the time, but many Texicans supported the return of escaped slaves to their owners. Will we have any part of American culture left?


Educators Debate Efforts to Rename Schools
AP
Fri Dec 26, 7:18 PM ET
Add U.S. National - AP to My Yahoo!

By STEVE SZKOTAK, Associated Press Writer

HAMPTON, Va. - At Jefferson Davis Middle School, a civil war of words is being waged over a petition drive to erase the name of the slave-owning Confederate president from the school.

Opinion is mixed, and it's not necessarily along racial lines.

"If it had been up to Robert E. Lee, these kids wouldn't be going to school as they are today," said civil rights leader Julian Bond, now a history professor at the University of Virginia. "They can't help but wonder about honoring a man who wanted to keep them in servitude."

That argument isn't accepted universally among Southern black educators, including the school superintendent in Petersburg, where about 80 percent of the 36,000 residents are black. Three schools carry the names of Confederates.

"It's not the name on the outside of the building that negatively affects the attitudes of the students inside," Superintendent Lloyd Hamlin said. "If the attitudes outside of the building are acceptable, then the name is immaterial."

It is difficult to say how many public schools in the 11 former Confederate states are named for Civil War leaders from the South. Among the more notable names, the National Center for Education Statistics lists 19 Robert E. Lees, nine Stonewall Jacksons and five Davises. J.E.B. Stuart, Turner Ashby, George Edward Pickett each have at least one school bearing their name.

For some, these men who defended a system that allowed slavery should not be memorialized on public schools where thousands of black children are educated.

The symbols and the names of the Confederacy remain powerful reminders of the South's history of slavery and the war to end it. States, communities and institutions continue to debate what is a proper display of that heritage.

Students in South Carolina have been punished for wearing Confederate flag T-shirts to school. The town of Clarksdale, Miss., permanently lowered the state flag — which has a Confederate emblem in one corner — to recognize "the pain and suffering it has symbolized for many years." And the Richmond-area Boy Scouts dropped Lee's name from its council this year.

In the most sweeping change, the Orleans Parish School Board in Louisiana gave new names to schools once named for historical figures who owned slaves. George Washington Elementary School was renamed for Dr. Charles Richard Drew, a black surgeon who organized blood banks during World War II.

In Gadsden, Ala., however, officials have resisted efforts to rename a middle school named for Nathan Bedford Forrest, an early backer of the Ku Klux Klan. And a school board in Kentucky adopted a new dress code that eliminates bans on provocative symbols including the Confederate flag.

The naming of schools after Confederate figures is particularly rich with symbolism because of the South's slow move to integrate. Many schools were named after the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) ruled segregated schools unconstitutional in 1954 but before the departure of whites left many inner city schools majority black.

"Now whites are complaining that they are changing the name of Stonewall Jackson High School," says Fitzhugh Brundage, a University of North Carolina history professor who is writing a book on "black and white memory from the Civil War."

While far from always the case, the naming of some public schools after Confederate generals was a parting shot to blacks emerging from segregated schools.

"It was an attempt to blend the past with the present but holding onto a romanticized past," Jennings Wagoner, a U.Va. scholar on the history of education, said of the practice of naming schools after Lee, Jackson and others. "It was also a time of extreme racism."

Erenestine Harrison, who launched the petition drive to rename Jefferson Davis Middle School, attended Hampton's segregated public schools. She moved north in 1967 and was struck by the school names upon her return seven years ago to Hampton, a city at the mouth of Chesapeake Bay. Educated as a psychologist, she has worked in the city schools as a substitute teacher.

"If I were a kid, especially a teenager, I would be ashamed to tell a friend that I went to Jefferson Davis," said Harrison, 55. "Basically, those guys fought for slavery."

But Henry Kidd, former Virginia commander of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (news - web sites), sees efforts by Harrison and others as a "chipping away, piece by piece, at our history."

If you enjoyed reading about "Educators Debate Efforts to Rename Schools that are named after Confederate Leaders" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
HBK
December 26, 2003, 11:30 PM
I think that's ridiculous. I have neither the time nor the energy to engage in another "purpose of the civil war" debate. They are revising our history at every turn. I believe our country would be better off if the South had won. That doesn't mean I believe in slavery. I do believe in state's rights and that state's rights was the main loss of both sides in the War of Southern Independence.

Malone LaVeigh
December 26, 2003, 11:38 PM
They should rename all of the private white academies for the Confederate leaders and rename all of the public schools something that won't offend the vast majority of the public school students, who are, unfortunately, black.

Ky Larry
December 27, 2003, 12:08 AM
I started to write a very snide,sarcastic reply to this thread but I realise it's pointless. How can you force people to focus on drug abuse, teenage mothers, and unemployment when there vision doesn't go beyond a schools name? How sad. :confused:

Zach S
December 27, 2003, 12:20 AM
Larry, I had one typed out, but i got a script box about IE performing an illegal operation and it was lost.

Besides, youre right, its pointless.

thorbry
December 27, 2003, 08:45 AM
Nathan Bedford Forrest, an early backer of the Ku Klux Klan. He was actually the founder of the original Klan, and although he never envisioned it being the violent hateful orginization it is in recent times his name should never be given to a institution of learning.

I have seen many "Why the war was fought" threads and agree with others that they are pointless I have my opinion you have your's and they ain't gonna change here.

But this is not about the war it is about segregationist taking one last juvenile shot at the civil rights movement, just as they did with the Confederate flags over the former Confedrerate state capitols

If honoring these men, and the southern soldiers was so important to the honorable white people of the south why did they not take these actions in the 100 years between battles.

I went to Stonewall Jackson JH and Robert E. Lee HS and rode past cemetaries where ancestors who died in the war are buried to get there. And ther was a sense of sothern pride walking past the statue of Jackson on his mighty steed each day. But I grew up in a different South.

Let the kids of today have that same sense of pride walking past the heroes of there culture In my area today there's a George W. Carver Elementary and a Booker T. Elem. Had it not been for their names on a building my son would probably not know who they were

artherd
December 27, 2003, 09:27 AM
Here's a "what the ?????" from rural PRK.

There's one US flag now, it stands for everything good about America, get used to it or please leave.

The Civil war is important to remenber, lest we allow it to happen again. It is not something I want to have to re-live, or live at all. Please leave it where it belongs, in the past.

greyhound
December 27, 2003, 09:28 AM
How can you force people to focus on drug abuse, teenage mothers, and unemployment when there vision doesn't go beyond a schools name? How sad

Ky Larry, I agree 100%.

However, since it is much easier to argue about nonsense like school names than it is to focus on complicated problems such as you mentioned, that what our "enlightened" choose to do.:banghead:

Nightfall
December 27, 2003, 09:48 AM
Some people are just too stupid not to confuse remembering our history with celebrating slavery, etc.

El Tejon
December 27, 2003, 09:57 AM
Remembering the Civil War is important. However, one does not see schools in Germany after Nazi party leaders now.

However, with all that's wrong with governmental schools it is analogous to moving the deck chairs on a sinking ship.:(

Spot77
December 27, 2003, 09:57 AM
Even if you subscribe to the theory that the Civil War was fought on the sole issue of slavery, you still can't overlook the principles of what made some of these men great; the COURAGE to stand up for what they believed in, the HONOR in which many of them led, and the SACRIFICES they made to their cause. These should be the sound principles that American kids need to learn when studying the Confederacy.

If people would just lose the segregationist attitude and focus on something positive I think we could all live a little more peacefully. At least with regards to this issue.


On a side note: Norton (here on THR) gave me a book called, "Guns of the South" which is based on some time travellers heading back in time to the civil war and giving their AK-47's to the south. Should make for some good reading.

KRAUTGUNNER
December 27, 2003, 10:12 AM
I'd be proud to go to a school named after Jefferson Davis, Bobby Lee or Stonewall Jackson!

thorbry
December 27, 2003, 10:41 AM
There's one US flag now, it stands for everything good about America, get used to it or please leave.
Possibly a valid point, but one of the things it stands for is that I don't have to get used to it or leave

Glock Glockler
December 27, 2003, 11:26 AM
Educators debate...

I mislike that term, as it suggests that these people are actually educating children as opposed to socializing (indoctriating) them.

submin
December 27, 2003, 12:54 PM
"If it had been up to Robert E. Lee, these kids wouldn't be going to school as they are today," said civil rights leader Julian Bond, now a history professor at the University of Virginia.

Nor would they if these guys had their day is the sun.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/165680/6580_1.jpg

http://philadelphiaweekly.com/archives/article.asp?ArtID=6580

King Samir Shabazz, 35, stands in his bedroom readying for war. He slides on his black military pants, puts on the matching cargo shirt and twists the shirt's buttons top to bottom. He laces his shiny black leather boots and fastens his black artillery belt.

Now in full battle dress, he smoothes over the red, yellow and green patch on the front of his shirt that shows a black panther emerging out of Africa. Around the patch, it reads, "NEW BLACK PANTHER PARTY. FREEDOM OR DEATH."

Ready for combat and armed with 300 flyers, King heads for Suburban Station. His mission: to announce the arrival of a new black liberation army.

He positions himself against the flow of pedestrians and targets specific commuters by calling "black man, black man" or "sis."

Some read the flyer immediately. Others fold it in half and tuck it away as King wishes them "peace" or "black power."

When a grungy blond guy sticks his hand out for a flyer, King shakes his head no. When the guy asks for one politely, King looks him in the eye and spits out, "No." The man walks away dumbfounded. King rolls his eyes, purses his lips and mumbles, "Cracker, please."

A black transit cop is also refused a flyer.

A cop, even a black cop, is a pig and cannot be a part of the new liberation army.

Some people stop to ask more about this new army. One man recalls how the original Black Panthers watched over the streets of North Philadelphia in the '60s.

Now there's a new Black Panther Party? To protect us from what?

"Our open enemy," says King, his brown eyes piercing. "The white man."

The weekly meetings had been held at a West Philadelphia storefront. But King was told the owner's husband didn't want Panthers there. King, though, says he knows the bigger truth: When Whitey discovers you're serious about revolution, he shuts you down.

"If police ain't f/ckin' with me, I ain't doing something right," he says. "When the cops is knocking on your door, now you're doing something right."

Still, score one for the Man tonight. The quick change in venue has dwindled King's usual audience of 10 to two. The meeting starts with a videotaped lecture by Dr. Khallid Abdul Muhammad, the New Panther Party's former national chairman. On the tape, Khallid is at a rally in Harlem. His message: "Revolution is the solution."

"Our people are lost as hell, very lost, and it's going to take some type of revolution to get our people back," he says, "to mobilize our people for self-determination."

By "back" he means a segregated nation-state, where blacks operate totally independent of whites, a separate world of black schools, hospitals, banks, businesses and churches similar to Tulsa's historic Greenwood District in Hannibal B. Johnson's book Black Wall Street, or the movie White Man's Burden, where it's Whitey who lives in poverty, crime and blight, and black folks rule the world.

Of course, King says, Whitey's not going to let that happen.

"He's never going to let us live inside the Constitution," he says. "Until we realize that, we're going to remain dumb, deaf and blind. I can't wait for the day that they're all dead. I won't be completely happy until I see our people free and Whitey dead."

By "dead," King means socially, economically, politically--and, if necessary, yes, physically.

He says his distaste for Whitey grew until beating up white boys became as normal for him as tying his shoes. He and his gang would "just start whippin' their asses" in school and after school, at football games and parties.

He says he was finally kicked out of school for being "very outspoken and active."

King first heard Dr. Khallid Abdul Muhammad speak in 1989. By then, he was part of the Nation of Islam security detail.

King was drawn to Khallid's fiery rhetoric and his portrayal of the white man as the devil. As a top aide in the Nation, Khallid preached black self-determination and urged blacks to arm themselves against whites.

Hearing Khallid speak, King decided to emulate his newfound mentor by becoming a black man who would never compromise with the white devil.

Minister Louis Farrakhan suspended Khallid from the Nation in 1994 after he gave a speech at New Jersey's Kean College and referred to Jewish people as "bloodsuckers" and the Pope as a "no-good cracker."

The new party's rejection of all alliances has some original Black Panther members dismissing them as a hate group similar to the Klan or Al Qaeda.

"They're little black racists without the power to implement overt racism," says Bobby Seale, the founding chairman of the original Black Panthers. "They are totally antithetical to what the original Black Panther Party was about. We believed in black unity, but only as a catalyst to help humanize the world."

The Philadelphia chapter currently has four members. "All I need is 10," says King. "When you have 10 brothers in uniform, suited and booted and ready for war, white folks know these niggas ain't their niggas. We kick white folks asses. We take it right to the cracker."

This guy claims to have only four members in the philly area, but you can bet these numbers are tainted the throw off unwanted attention from the likes of the fbi/homeland security forces.

For another example of selective social cleansing, note that I can’t give directions to my house without evoking the racist name ‘robert c byrd’ three times. Most things with his name on them are Federal, State or local government buildings or highways and could easily be changed to something less politically offensive. But then this is the land under the rockefeller boot.

submin
December 27, 2003, 01:01 PM
Sorry guys. The philly weekly has evidently decided to censor their own web site. The link no longer takes you to the article I posted. After running a search of the author, no mention of the above article.

You may be able to find it if you spend more time than I though it was worth

Glock Glockler
December 27, 2003, 01:22 PM
"If it had been up to Robert E. Lee, these kids wouldn't be going to school as they are today," said civil rights leader Julian Bond, now a history professor at the University of Virginia. "They can't help but wonder about honoring a man who wanted to keep them in servitude."

Check your facts, Lee was personally opposed to slavery.

"If I were a kid, especially a teenager, I would be ashamed to tell a friend that I went to Jefferson Davis," said Harrison, 55. "Basically, those guys fought for slavery."

Again, check your facts. Davis supported seccession for many reasons, can you tell meanything of his political career or writings or are you simply parroting whatever morons around you utter? For his time, his family was very progressive in their policy towards their slaves, allowing them tremendous autonomy in developing their own mini-court system to punish one slave when they harmed another, along with other things that varied quite a bit from what was standard practice at the time.

Remembering the Civil War is important. However, one does not see schools in Germany after Nazi party leaders now.

Please, Tejon, you're beter than that. To compare the people like Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee to Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich is not only insulting but also ludicrious. I understand that you have a lot of emotion invested in the idea that the North was virtueous and noble while the South was vile and evil, but human events are never so black and white.

You also never answered my question fom previous threads: if the South had abolished slavery immediately after seceeding would you still suport a war against them?

El Tejon
December 27, 2003, 01:46 PM
Glock, I believe there are direct historical analogies. The Nazi party fought to enslave the Jewish and Slavic people. The Confederates fought to keep their slaves.

Hmmm, that is a thought-provoking "what if". You're saying just talk of leaving, no treason yet??? Interesting, but it ignores the reason the South foguht to begin with--slavery. However, I believe my response would be the same response as that fine Southern General turned President, Andrew Jackson, when told that New England was talking of leaving the Union by force.

"What ifs" aside, the South committed treason in order to keep slavery. Why on earth would they vote to abolish slavery--the CSA's reason for being?:confused:

Jeff White
December 27, 2003, 01:47 PM
It wasn't my intent to re-fight the war between the states here. I posted this to discuss the wisdom of ignoring history or re-writing it because it doesn't fit in todays politically correct vision of things. The article doesn't mention how long those schools have had those names. I would bet they have had those names for generations. Why change them now? And then we have to ask, what's next? A move to give Texas back to Mexico?

Jeff

El Tejon
December 27, 2003, 01:51 PM
Jeff, changing attitudes as the revisionist histories of the CSA are criticized.

Glock Glockler
December 27, 2003, 02:41 PM
Tejon,

Suppose the South were to say "Adios, we're doing our own thing, best luck to you", they seceed and than they immediately ban slavery. You would still wage an imperialist war of aggression to bound them, against their will under the domination of the Northern govt?

Do you believe people have the right to divorce under the law, or should a husband be able to beat and kill the wife if necessary to keep her from leaving?

You also seem to believe the myth that slavery was the only reason for the war, and I've acepted that no amount of logic or historical evidence is going to change your mind, so I wont bother.

I just find it odd that one who claims to believe in freedom would use force against a people to keep them from going on their own. Hmmm, people wanting to go on their own and another using every bit of violence possible to prevent them. Hmmm, I sure am glad you're against slavery:rolleyes:

El Tejon
December 27, 2003, 02:55 PM
My answer remains the same as Andy Jackson's to New England's.

The evidence that the Civil War was about slavery to the South comes from the South. It is no myth. It is hanging in Southern museums, recorded in their historical journals and records.

There is nothing wrong with self-defense or defense of others. The South started a war to preserve slavery; the North ended it to preserve the Union.

If the South does change the names of their schools, they should at least change them to Union generals, especially those schools which have a high African-American enrollment.

Glock Glockler
December 27, 2003, 03:02 PM
I'm no longer going to debate the slavery issue with you because it's pointless, just please tell me in your own words what you'd advocate instead of deferring t Andrew Jackson who wanted to genocide the Indians and ignored the Supreme Court ruling and violated his oath of office by doing so.

Would you wage an imperialist war of aggression against a people for wanting nothing other than to go their own way? If NH decides to seceed will you send in Jackboots to kill us because we want to seperate? Interesting moral code you have, as you seem to advocate murder to prevent self-government.

Waitone
December 27, 2003, 03:45 PM
History is written by the winners. Those of us who live 150+ years after the events have the privilege of debating the issues. Those who want to deconstruct American society must discredit everything that makes American society what it is. Like it or not, the American Civil War is still being fought. I point to THR as evidence. Everytime A Civil War thread appears the debate breaks out again.

Deconstructionists love attacking symbols. Trouble is those who are not deconstructions tend to minimize the importance of symbols. The so-call southern battleflag is the most recent symbol to be attacked. Things died down and the attacks picked up on southern historical figures, which is the point of this thread. Historical figures will be profaned and denegrated and deconstructionsist will move on to the next target.

At some point the ultimate symbol will be attacked. The American flag flew over slavery. Federal and northern historicals figures parallel confederate figures. At some point those who would convert our society into some kind of utopia (usually socialist) will turn their guns on today's symbols. Who will stand and defend those symbols since deconstructions have established moral equivelency by the complicency of those who failed to stand when the target was historical symbols and personalities.

The other shoe will pinch when deconstructions target todays symbols.

El Tejon
December 27, 2003, 04:00 PM
Glock, stopping treason is not murder. One is not free to levy war on the United States of America which is what the CSA did.

Wait, I disagree. The Southern flags embody the motivation of hatred and the preservation of slavery. It was the American flag that defeated this.

The CSA has been reconstructed over the decades as some sort of noble cause. This is false. I see this as the New South coming to terms with its history and recognizing that its history and symbols are not what they are touted to be.

Glock Glockler
December 27, 2003, 04:15 PM
Tejon,

How is New England or New Hampshire deciding to go on their own making war upon the US? If NH decded to take over the Washington govt by force of arms, I concede that you have a point, but that is not the same as if one simply goes their own way.

Were all the tiny countries in Europe making war on the various empires that held them because they wanted to go on thier own? Sweden and Norway were once joined and it was peacefully dissolved, not a shot was fired.

To make war against someone is to take an active step in engagement with a party, seceeding is removing oneself from that engagement and cutting those political ties. Comparing secession to treason is like comparing a woman leaving her husband to him beating her.

Azrael256
December 27, 2003, 09:21 PM
I think that's ridiculous. No, it's not ridiculous, it's absolute genius. This isn't about cultural sensitivity, or who owned slaves but didn't want to, or who started what war. It's about the "useful idiots" trying to erase people from history. It's that whole controlling the past to control the future thing. Erase names like Jefferson Davis or Robert E. Lee, and pretty soon you'll be erasing names like George Washington... oh, wait, they already did. It's just the beginning now, but these idiots are going to make things ba-a-a-a-ad down the road.

XavierBreath
December 27, 2003, 11:40 PM
Tejon,
It seems as though you hold two firm beliefs. One is that secession is treason. The other is that the War Between the States was fought over slavery. Because of that, we will never come to a concensus. I would like to give you some food for thought though. If you don't want it, skip the next two paragraphs, OK?

Southerners were forced between defending their state or their country. Treason against their state or their country. Many held their state and a decentralized government in higher regard than a centralized government. At the time it was not illegal for a state to withdraw from the United States. It became treason by virtue of the United States' view of secession. So Joe Southerner was put in the position of defend his home or surrender. Many Southerners to this day look at Lincoln and the US government and then look at Janet Reno and Waco and see only a difference in scale. These questions of individual freedom are still being debated today. The only difference is today is the government has the last say, not the people. If the US government decided to invade your state and destroy your way of life, would you fight, submit, or run? Consider the Patriot Act, the RKBA debate, and a whole host of other issues today. If the US Army invaded your state with the purpose of removing your means of providing for your family, and your means of defending yourself, what would you do? Today, federal law reigns supreme. In 1861 it did not. In 1775 the colonies fought for their independence. They won. In 1861 the Southern states fought for their independence. They lost. History is written by the victorious. It is not always accurate, and it seldom tells both sides of the story.

Thousands of Southerners who fought to the death in the Civil War had never owned a single slave. People go to war for many reasons. To say that all or no Southerners fought for the preservation of slavery is simplistic. This time in history was much more complex than that. If it was fought over slavery, then why was it that Lincoln waited until 1863 to free a single slave? And why did that freeing of slaves only apply to Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana (except the parishes of St. Bernard, Palquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension, Assumption, Terrebone, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the city of New Orleans), Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkeley, Accomac, Morthhampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Anne, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth)?

Trying to isolate why a war was fought is like trying to keep stink in a roadkill skunk. It just isn't going to happen. wars are fought by thousands of men, and each man has his own reasons.

To the story at hand though, at least these so called educators realize that Stonewall Jackson and Jefferson Davis are associated with the Civil War. Now if they can learn to do simple math and teach our children, we just may get somewhere. Educators in this country need to start worrying about important things, like education.

kbr80
December 27, 2003, 11:43 PM
The Southern flags embody the motivation of hatred and the preservation of slavery. It was the American flag that defeated this.

Didn't the American Flag fly over slavery long before the CSA was born?

Dilettante
December 28, 2003, 06:03 AM
This time in history was much more complex than that. If it was fought over slavery, then why was it that Lincoln waited until 1863 to free a single slave?

Slavery was abolished in DC and in the territories in 1862.
In 1861 Lincoln turned down a number of compromise proposals that would have expanded slavery into the territories.

And why did that freeing of slaves only apply to Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana (except the parishes of St. Bernard, Palquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension, Assumption, Terrebone, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the city of New Orleans),...

The Emancipation Proclamation depended on wartime powers of the President. It did not apply to areas not in rebellion.

Abolishing slavery completely required a Constitutional amendment, which Lincoln backed even when the 1864 election looked uncertain.

Tamara
December 28, 2003, 08:06 AM
They should rename all of the private white academies for the Confederate leaders and rename all of the public schools something that won't offend the vast majority of the public school students, who are, unfortunately, black.

What?!?

That's a joke, right?

You don't really think that the "vast majority" of public school students are black, do you? (If you do, it explains a lot. :uhoh: )

greyhound
December 28, 2003, 08:49 AM
It's just the beginning now, but these idiots are going to make things ba-a-a-a-ad down the road.

Yup, historical revisionism is a lovely thing: take today's mores and values, and apply them to historical times, when the mores and values were different.

Given that what we call "human rights" is a relatively modern thing, its easy to use historical revisionism to show that the US is an "evil oppressor".

Just another little trick by the transnationalists to show why its so important that "we're all one world now" rather than a nation...

XavierBreath
December 28, 2003, 09:23 AM
Dilettante
Why did Lincoln wait two years? Surely he could write faster than that. Perhaps it was because he had more important things at hand? Like a Civil War he needed to justify? Justification of military conflict after the fact is still happening today. Do you think it couldn't happen in 1861?

Obiwan
December 29, 2003, 03:55 PM
What is forgotten is that many blacks fought on both sides.

In the South they were integrated into standing units and paid far better that in the North where they fought in segregated units.

El Tejon
December 29, 2003, 03:59 PM
Obiwan, and when Blacks were allowed into the CSA military, the Confederate Congress declared that it undermined the reason for leaving the Union.

Malone LaVeigh
December 29, 2003, 04:55 PM
You don't really think that the "vast majority" of public school students are black, do you?In the parts of the South I'm intimately familiar with, "vast majority" would not be an overstatement. Maybe you have information on other parts of the South?

Tamara
December 30, 2003, 12:21 AM
Maybe you have information on other parts of the South?

Only the parts I spent the last 26 years of my life in, where I attended public schools for grades 3-12...

(PS: BTW, there's only one state in the South where African Americans are even a plurality. Can you name it? :uhoh: )

(PPS: Seeing as how African-Americans make up roughly 15% of the total population of the US, even if 100% of the public school students in Possum Hollow are black, this does not make "the vast majority" of public school students in the US black, n'est-ce pas?)

Malone LaVeigh
December 30, 2003, 01:52 PM
That's right, change the argument. Please show me where I said the vast majority of public school students in the US are black. Also, it doesn't require that blacks make up a majority of any state for the majority of students in the public schools be black. Demographics and white flight, my dear. I based my statement on my observations. It may not be true anymore in the entire South, but it sure seems to be in most of Mississippi.

Edited to add:

Malone "Proud alumnus of Davis Elementary in Greenwood and Jeff Davis JC on the Gulf Coast" LaVeigh

oweno
December 30, 2003, 04:24 PM
and speaking of names, two of the early Polaris boats (1960s) were:

SSBN 601 USS Robert E. Lee

SSBN 634 USS Stonewall Jackson

I doubt that either name would (or could) be chosen for a new submarine today.

Oh well, at least we could honor them back then.

Biff
December 30, 2003, 10:32 PM
Both Jackson and Lee were personally opposed to slavery. They took up arms in defense of their country (Virginia) which was under attack by foreign invaders (Federal Army). In 1860 people thought of their states as their countries, with the USA being a republic or confederation of these distinct states for the purpose of mutual benefit and defense - similar to the EU today. It was unthinkable that troops from one state would cross a border into another.

Jackson actually did quite a bit for the betterment of blacks in his community. Before the war, he taught a Sunday School class for blacks, both slave and free, at the Presbyterian church in Lexington, VA. In this class, he made it one of his tasks to teach his students to read, (which was illegal throughout most of the south) so they could study the Word of God. Once, during the war, after a particularly large battle, his pastor recieved a letter from him. Thinking they were going to be getting news of this battle that their local hero had been engaged in, the pastor began to read the letter to the townspeople gathered around him. Jackson mentioned not one word of the war, but was concerned and eager that someone would write him and let him know how his Sunday School students were getting along. After the war, some of his former students went on into the ministry, founding other churches, some of which are still active today.

bfason
December 31, 2003, 12:07 AM
However, one does not see schools in Germany after Nazi party leaders now.

Actually, you might be surprised. When I went to school there, I lived in a student dormitory named after after a prominent Nazi doctor. Europe's history hangs over the present like a ghost that in a way that is difficult to describe to Americans who have never lived there. I lived right around the corner from where Klaus Barbie lived when he was recruited by US intelligence. A few blocks away there was a street that was hundreds of years old called "Judengasse," or in English "Jew Alley." And the debates raged about whether the names should be changed or not, but not necessarily along the lines that you might think. Some argued that the names should be changed in order to to not honor the more disgraceful elements of German history. Others insisted that they should not be changed so that the mistakes of the previous generation should not be forgotten.

You'd turn the corner and all of a sudden there would be some unpleasant but necessary reminder of the harsh and not-so-distant past. There was an empty lot in the middle of town which contained a memorial to a synagogue which had been destroyed during Krystallnacht. Then I'd cycle out and enter small towns which had statues honoring the fallen of the Wehrmacht. Wierd place overall.

What to do with the past? There are plenty of statues on the University of Texas honoring white male oppressive slave-owners. Every states in the South has roads and hospitals named after Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis.

And along come these leftwing PC ethnic cleansers telling us to tear down those statues. My response to them is not printable.
:barf:

Tamara
December 31, 2003, 02:21 AM
That's right, change the argument. Please show me where I said the vast majority of public school students in the US are black.

...


rename all of the public schools something that won't offend the vast majority of the public school students, who are, unfortunately, black.

Sincerely,
A graduate of suburban Joseph Wheeler public high school, 90+% of whose students were white. :uhoh:

fallingblock
December 31, 2003, 04:06 AM
Malone's memory is slipping again!:D

JohnBT
December 31, 2003, 08:02 AM
"The Confederates fought to keep their slaves."

I'm sorry, but that is a statement not supported by facts. Any facts. The vast majority of Southerners did not own slaves - so how could they fight to keep what they didn't have?

I understand that the statement is likely intended to mean that the government/leaders started the war to 'keep their slaves', but that is not what it says.

The majority of Southerners at the time of the Civil War were poor dirt farmers who couldn't afford a pair of new shoes every year - and people think they could afford to buy and feed a slave. This lifestyle continued well into the 20th century. In the case of my dad's parents it continued into the 1960s (they did make a bunch of money selling Albemarle Pippen apples to England during the Depression, but that was just a strange stroke of luck. the Queen liked them - the apples that is.) I learned a lot of this initially as a child by talking to my grandparents who were born around 1890 and my parents who were born in the early '20s. Not much really happened to improve the economy of the South until the introduction of air conditioning attracted businesses from other regions. Yeah, there were some factories, but the workers didn't make much.

John

P.S. - Remember: The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the areas in revolt - where it could not be enforced. The slaves in the North were not freed until AFTER the war. If the war was about slavery, then why did the North wait to free their own slaves?

P.P.S. - Did you know that U.S. Grant's wife owned slaves throughout the war?

JohnBT
December 31, 2003, 08:11 AM
I forgot. Jeff White, about your original post...I got as far as "Educators Debate..." and lost interest. :)

As a white, middle-aged Virginian whose family (both sides) has been here since before the Revolutionary War, I say let the students vote on the school names if they care to, but keep the educators out of it.

OTOH, we have civic leaders who from time to time voice the desire to remove the statues from Monument Avenue (except the Arthur Ashe statue I suppose.) My response: Can I have one? I'm not picky... but Lee, Jackson or Stuart would look good in my yard. :)

John

RandyB
December 31, 2003, 09:52 AM
I have family that fought for the North and the South (my fathers side were Yankees, moms Confederate). While the legal issue over slavery was the reason for the wars beginnings. This issue over a State having the right to leave the Union was the reason for the war. Personally none of my southern family owned slaves and knew they never would (they were sharecroppers for the most part). They fought because thier homes were being invaded. If Canada/Mexico/etc. decided that they didn't like the way were were done things in our own state/country and invaded, how many of you would fight for home and family? How many posts have I seen of folks ready to defend our homes from our own national government? North or South, they fought for a cause that they believed in and at the time , not looking back fro today, how many of those Southern Heroes fought and died for defense of their homes and family? As Lee said, I cannot fight against my home state of Virginia. It wasn't a question of slavery, it was a question of which came first my state, or my country?

For give my ranting and ravings, but to look at this in a black & white issue is wrong, their are far too many shades of grey on the reasons why the War of Northern Agression/Civil War was fought.

Personally I'd be as honored to go to Sherman/Lee/Grant/Jackson, etc. school as any other. These men fought for a cause, and we need to look at how they percived the cause and how they fought. Comparing them to Hilter and his minions, who practiced genocide, is in my opinion unfair.

cratz2
December 31, 2003, 02:10 PM
My only complaint about the renaming of schools named for 'questionable figures' is one of lack of thinking in the part of communities. I don't think a schoolboard or a small group of politicians should be able to change the name of a school... If enough registered voters want to change the name of something, then make it so. But I can't agree with changing the name of 'Jefferson Davis Middle School' to 'Malcolm X Central Technical' or somesuch...

And I definately tend to think this is a bit of a diversionary tactic to cloud more serious issues going on in the area.

Malone LaVeigh
December 31, 2003, 03:01 PM
Tamara,

Context is everything, darlin'. It should be obvious to anyone reading my post that the subject was about public schools in the South. Is that the best you can do?

But all of that said, I'm willing to admit that there might be as much desegregation by neighborhood in the South as in the North. I guess whites in some places would rather move to their own neighborhoods and send the kids to majority-white public schools than continue to support private schools. In my home town, there is one elementary school in the richer part of town that is probably majority white. There is only one public high school, though, and most whites go to private school then.

I looked for links at several Southern state depts of education, all I found talked about how desegregated the schools have become in recent years. I would still submit that the schools named after Confederate leaders tend to be in the older parts of town, which in many places have become predominately black while whites fled to the 'burbs.

If you enjoyed reading about "Educators Debate Efforts to Rename Schools that are named after Confederate Leaders" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!